senado_tabelas_referencia

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. Description adds details about return structures (e.g., 'count, tipos', 'totalSenadores, partidos') and the constant 'tabela' field, providing context beyond annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Description is moderately long but well-organized with bullet-like structure using semicolons. Front-loaded with main verb. No redundant phrases, though it packs many details into a single paragraph.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple 1-parameter tool, description covers purpose, all parameter values, return structures, connections to other tools, and edge cases (e.g., 'Toda resposta inclui o campo tabela'). Highly complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with enum and description. The description adds detailed meaning for each enum value, including return shapes and usage context, which enhances understanding beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states 'Consulta tabelas de referência do Senado pelo parâmetro tabela', enumerates all possible values and their output structures. It distinguishes from sibling tools like senado_listar_senadores for parliamentarian lists.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says when to use: to find correct sigla before senado_buscar_materias/senado_search_processos, and to interpret tipoUsoPalavra in senado_discursos_senador. Also directs to senado_listar_senadores for nominal list.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.